Shining one, hope this helps! cheers,
your number 1 fan!
Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic
by Shining One 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
I'm sure Demski is a nice gent and probably a more humane person than a prick like me. I think everyone is set in their thinking about one topic or another. But I really don't think that ID proponents have a case when they say evolutionists are just as dogmatic as the religous (with the creed they blindly follow being naturalism).
I think the ID camp chooses to ignore the practical aspect of science that plays a part in all this. To be productive and to propel human knowledge forward at a more than a snail's pace, scientists focus on the more strongly confirmed hypotheses vs only the weakly confirmed ones. Otherwise they'd be having to investigate nearly all hypotheses one can think of, except for the ones that contradict themselves, of course.
So as a useful means of considering which hypotheses are more credible (and so more worthy of investigation and the $$$$ for it) there are usually some markers that are looked for:
- quantity, precision and variety of the available evidence
- confirmation by new implications or new facts that come to light from the hypothesis
- theoretical support
- likelihood of the hypothesis (given a current body of knowledge)
- simplicity
I'll admit some of these overlap with each other like 2 and 3, and 1 and 2, but you get the drift.
Intelligent design simply doesn't come off as strong as evolutionary explanations when using those characterisics. Really, what else can we learn from: "It was all created." How? - There's no proposal. Knowledge doesn't move forward as much.
-
BluesBrother
It just puzzles and saddens me a little when believers of both sides of this debate are so dogmatic. The opposing view is deemed as heresey and stamped upon . When a subject is so hotly debated by the most learned among us , surely a wise course is to hold off from final judgement while holding, for oneself, to the explanation that seems most likely.
-
tetrapod.sapien
hey BB,
surely a wise course is to hold off from final judgement while holding, for oneself, to the explanation that seems most likely.
it is wise except that "the explanation that seems most likely" is what is under attack.
it's like people organizing themselves against gravity.
it's like people organizing themselves to defend the possibility that there IS INDEED a teacup orbiting mars.
TS
-
Shining One
TS,
Why are you so blind to the holes in the major tenents of naturalism that make it look like swiss cheese? Is this a leftover JW thing with you, your lack of open-mindedness and utter hatred of Christianity?
Rex -
Shining One
Hey Kid-A,
I am surprised that you did not draw the same parallel with evolution (as you did with belief in God) from your cartoon! When one thinks of the swine tooth that 'proved' evolutionary theory in the Scopes (monkey) trial the similarity is triking! Scientists has a neat text book drawing of a monkey turning into man and it was all derived from ONE PIG TOOTH. There is nothing like, 'casting your pearls before swine' is there, Kid? LOL
Rex -
kid-A
Rex,
You know I dont wear pearls, they clash with all my outfits......but heres my favourite swine!
-
Caedes
I really don't understand why science is being portrayed by some posters as dogmatic, all you have to do is come up with a new theory that fits the facts better than what we have currently and provide some hard scientific evidence for your point of view, do your experiments, get your results. Write it up, get it peer reviewed and published and lo and behold all those 'dogmatic' scientists will roll over.
-
Shining One
>Write it up, get it peer reviewed and published and lo and behold all those 'dogmatic' scientists will roll over.
We've seen the 'feeding frenzy' that evelopes anyone who actually does this!
Rex -
Midget-Sasquatch
Shining One,
"Feeding frenzy" is an exaggeration. The critiquing process isn't just done to ID proponents. Remember "cold fusion"?
